I have a degree in Bible study, you fool.
1 Corinthians 1:18 (LSB Strong's) 18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God.
You provided no proof of anything. Now that you're referencing Bart Erman, I know you're a basket case. And not a Christian.
Watch this. You couldn't answer my question. You said that the way you know something for certain is through gnosis.
How do you know that? Do you know that for certain?
You haven't justified knowledge, so all of the rest of your rambling incoherancy is dismissed.
No early texts are corrupted. You didn't post any early texts. You posted two clips of 1 Peter 2:11-20 without verse numbers that you said BOTH come out of the NIV. It's not my job to hunt and peck through them and figure out what the differences are.
As for Mark and Matthew, Mark simply provides more of the conversation. It's all completely related. You are just looking for inconsistencies and you want to find them.
Here is you. The fool.
1 Corinthians 1:18 (LSB Strong's) 18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God.
If I had the original texts, you would deny they were the originals. We have something better. We have thousands of manuscripts that have been traced down different paths and always say the exact same thing, with some very minor differences that are easy to spot, because they only appear in certain threads of the text transmission. You can see the forks in the road.
You don't know jack about textual criticism. You sound like a retard.
There is no such thing as Q.
What you can't show me is a passage in Scripture that the vast majority of Bible scholars believe is truly Scriptural that has later been uncovered to be an alteration. Because of textural criticism, we know about the couple of minor insertions such as the longer ending of Mark and the pericope adulterae. We even know about when and where they got introduced.
Whenever we find older manuscripts they confirm the unchanging nature of the Bible. For instance finding the entire book of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
You're going to burn in hell with your heresies.
I don't care about you getting names wrong. All you have done is show that pagans in the Bible thought Jesus was someone else and they never mentioned reincarnation.
And now you are doing what I warned you against, beating yourself up.
DUDE. You can't be this stupid. It must be on purpose. Pan worship has NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA to do with panteism.
What a moron. Go away, moron.
Transposing Elisha and Elijah means that you're not very talented or gifted and most likely slow.
Jesus uses a lot of titles. I am not here to explain to you why He uses Son of Man. Stop trying to change the subject.
No, the people of Caesarea Philippi were almost all pagan Romans and Greeks. You have no idea what you are talking about. You thought you were referring to Jews who were thinking that Jesus might be "Elisha."
Here is the thing. You haven't even demonstrated that these non-Jews didn't think that Jesus was Elijah resurrected. You just assume reincarnation for no reason other than your own bias. Because the passage doesn't mention reincarnation.
The entire town was a Pan worshiping town, dude. Jesus was in a Gentile town and he asked His disciples who these Gentile pan-worshiping pagans thought he was. The one thing they never claimed that he was, was reincarnated.
Take your well deserved L and learn from it. You can't climb out of this. Learn the LAW OF HOLES. Quit while you are way behind. It only gets worse for you, Squirt, I promise. Don't be one of those idiots who beats himself up on purpose.
We already know the longer ending of Mark isn't Scriptural and doesn't belong. Same with the Pericope Adulterae. Knowing this means no alteration was made. You're going to have to choose a passage that everyone thinks is actually in the Bible and is in every ancient manuscript, which is 99.999% of the Bible, and show that it was altered.
Dude, you chose the right user name.
You provided zero examples of the Bible being altered. You merely lied. You are a Grade A Retard. You have just enough synapses firing to maintain breathing.
There was never a passage in the Bible in support of reincarnation. You are making a lot of claims and have no proof.
No literal crucifixion? Prove it.
But first you need to justify "knowledge" from your worldview, because I know that you can't. In other words, I don't believe your worldview can even explain how it is possible to know something for certain. For instance, you say there was no literal crucifixion, watch as I make a complete and blithering fool out of you by asking this one simple question, which you will NEVER be able to answer:
How do you know?
Notice my question isn't, "why do you think that?" You claim to KNOW it. I don't think you can justify knowledge of ANYTHING in your worldview. So you go ahead and answer my question, and watch how I predict RIGHT NOW that whatever answer you give, I can demonstrate that you never answered my question.
Truth and falsehood are paradoxes?
Is that absolutely true?
I am not baothering with the rest of your psychotic screen of ignorance until you address THIS paradox by answering my question and justifying your answer.
Dude, I am not even going to try to decipher the babble you just spewed.
No, I am not going to go check out a bunch of websites.
I don't c are about a retarded and incorrect footnote in a defunked translation of the Bible, the NRSV. Footnotes AREN'T Scripture.
Dude, you really need to pray that you can repent and escape going to hell by turning to Jesus as your Savior. You're a crackpot pagan heathen.
None of the book of Revelation has been removed, which is why you can't demonstrate that.
It is called REVELATION not REVELATIONS. Sheesh dude. What an epic fail.
God doesn't sound like a tyrant in the Old Testament, you moron. God is no different in the Old Testament than in the new.
The Book of Genesis doesn't say anything about Nodites. There is no such thing as Nodites. You sound like a Mormon and their Nephites and Lamenites. What a fail.
No one knows where you got this garbage, but it sure wasn't the Bible. Nodites. Retarded, dude. Epic, super fail.
There has never been a single discovery of a single ancient Scriptural manuscript that has EVER shown a single example of Bible altering. The only changes are scribal errors which can normally be tracked down. They are always minor, like the forgetting of a punctuation or something like that. And because so many copies were made all over the place, these errors stand out like a sore thumb and we avoid putting them into translations.
Minus the one comment from Erasmus that accidentally got left in the Textus Receptus and thus is also in the King James Version.
How did the Land of Nod exist? Easy. God made it. Without any Nodites in it. Just like Antarctica doesn't have any Antarctites in it. What a moron.
There was no Lucifer rebellion era before Adam and Eve. Dude do you ride a unicorn stage coach to your elementary school, driven by a Leprechaun?
You are going to be damned to the deepest of deep hells if you don't repent and turn to Christ as your Savior.
Here is the nail in the coffin. Nothing else even matters. Here is the passage these reprobates are quoting to make the claim that Jews believed in reincarnation. They are starting with verse 14. Now watch how easy this is. Read verse 13. Now, who lived in Caesarea Philippi that Jesus is asking about? Pagans. Greek and Roman Pan worshipers for the most part. This wasn't a Jewish town.
This entire debate is over before it starts. As always when a retard tries to go against the Bible.
Matthew 16:13-16 (LSB Strong's) 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, saying, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
It's not about who knows more on a particular subject, it's about what is true or false, regardless of who gives you the truth. And one thing for certain here as that this 2eyesopen mental midget is out to lunch. I already demolished his retarded argument in one paragraph and there is no recovery from it. Fork stuck in. It's done.
Well, I just gave him the same answer I gave you. But I am usually already in enough debates to keep me busy. hehe This guy seems like a mindless rambler who can't even keep his thoughts on target. I mean, I have never seen such a confused spaghetti pile of thoughts. He's not worth the Excedrin it would take to understand what he is saying.
What a moron.
Elijah, not Elisha. One of the biggest differences between pharisees and Sadducees is that Pharisees believed in resurrection. So you are just a flat out retard.
And Jesus asked His disciples what people were saying about him. Matthew 16:14-16 (LSB Strong's) 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
So who is even giving these answers about Elijah, etc? Don't you think we should know that? Was it Sadducees or Pharisees?
Now, watch this. Let's back up 1 verse. Matthew 16:13 (LSB Strong's) 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, saying, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
Now, ask yourself. Were the people of Caesarea Phillippi Sadducees or Pharisees?
NEITHER. They weren't Jewish. They worshiped Pan. The people there were all part of Hellenistic and Roman cults. Mostly Pan worshipers.
Jews weren't the people being asked or answering. Jews did not believe in reincarnation. That's just dumb. Wow, you're dumb.
Yes and no? So what you said is false then. Truth and falsehood are not paradoxes. You don't get "truth for you." Sorry. I don't grant you pretending.
Your experience can't be trusted. Sorry. You can't even trust your own experience, because in your worldview you can't even know if you exist as you perceive yourself existing. How do you know the chemistry in your brain is wired in such a way as to make your senses reliable?
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?
You don't. Not based on your worldview. You can't.
That's why you have to pretend that truth is subjective.
I have no interest in answering questions from a retarded retarded who can't even be absolutely certain about anything objectively. Why waste my time?
You justify truth, or the conversation doesn't advance.